Paul Graham accidentally explained everything wrong with SV world view - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/586563/paul-graham-just-accidentally-explained-everything-wrong-with-silicon-valleys-world-view/ <comment><USER3> This is a duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10831261](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10831261) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10833549](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10833549).

<comment><USER4> HN's mods need to be able to merge the comment sections of dupe articles.

<comment><USER5> I am sort of surprised this website has so little functionality when it attracts some of the best programmers in the world by the thousands. I understand to some extent it's probably to prevent redditification, but mobile being entirely unreadable (and the "desktop view" on phones is broken now and does not help) is a bit much.

<comment><USER6> Not sure what you mean by "mobile being entirely unreadable". HN seems to have full functionality for me (on Android, using Opera or Dolphin with Desktop user agent).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I actually see both sides of this issue and don't think either essay is very good, both are preaching to the choir and neither will never convert anyone.

PG is arguing against a strawman using a very cold and clinical justification for his career—the wider social issues are not addressed at all.

Meanwhile this article barely stops to acknowledge that SV is actually building things as opposed to ripping people off with arbitrage and financial instruments. Beyond that it is just a frothy rant setting up another strawman about rich people telling poor people what to do (which is not really what PG was doing). Never does the author stop to acknowledge that they are probably fine with small mom-and-pop businesses, just not venture-funded unicorns, and that if we dislike the machinations of SV there must be some gray line papering over a pretty wide swath of the continuum between the two.

Personally I think PG would have been better off to just keep his mouth shut, because when you're rich it just looks like post-hoc rationalization no matter how you slice it. The social issues are real, and we are going to have to contend with what the effective replacement of labor with capital means for our society, but this is a conversation that the SV elite don't have the political capital to address.

<comment><USER8> The article actually addresses that SV is building things. Wood mentions how 95 percent of start-ups fail. Presumably most of what is being built is crap, or destroyed.

Would you rate that as building value or ripping people off?

<comment><USER9> Not sure what point is being tried to be made here:

1\. A startup that fails doesn't mean it has built crap. Sometimes things fail for unrelated reasons, whether ahead of their time or because the economy took a downturn, etc etc. SOMETIMES because they are "ripping us off".

2\. 95% of scientific experiments "fail". Are scientists ripping us off?

The whole idea of the market place IS failure. In fact, if our larger market was healthier, we'd see MORE failure (and in more established corporations, such as the "too big to fails"). The fact that 95% of startups fail is one of the healthiest indicators of SV. Experimentation necessarily means many failures in search of the one success. Maybe some day we'll have a magical simulation machine where we can run product ideas ahead of time and know "the right place" to put our money, but until then, the best system is one that invests in diverse companies with oftentimes mutually exclusive ideas.

<comment><USER10> > A startup that fails doesn't mean it has built crap. Sometimes things fail > for unrelated reasons, whether ahead of their time or because the economy > took a downturn, etc etc.

Yeah, that's a generous reading. I'm in the startup world and let me tell you, there are a LOT of clowns running around right now with completely shit ideas, just trying to grab some of the sweet sweet VC money before the music stops. It's appalling.

<comment><USER11> That in no way contradicts what the parent claimed. You can both be right: Some startups fail for unrelated reasons, and some are full of clowns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "For him, a better future is one where a team of eight guys makes billions of dollars with an invention that replaces thousands of people currently earning livable wages with automation. If those people lose their jobs, they're just collateral that got in the way of progress. This is a bizarre way of saying that the only thing keeping people poor is their inability to capitalize on their future obsolescence."

This is a completely luddite position.

So if she had it her way we would still have people walking around planting seeds instead of using modern farming equipment because the people planting seeds would have lost their jobs, even though history has shown us time and time again that people retrain and do different work. Not to mention that the new jobs that replaced the old ones are nearly always safer and more productive for society. \</comment><comment>-- edited grammar

<comment><USER13> Agreed. Replacing menial work with automation frees up the people doing the menial work to learn new skills and do other work. The net result is that more useful work is done, which equates to wealth created. If some of those people are incapable of learning new skills, the net surplus of wealth that we have created should be sufficient for society to cover their basic living expenses. We do not need those people to continue doing busywork in order to provide for them.

The more that we can do this, the more surplus wealth we create. This is clearly working by reference to history: this is the best time _ever_ to be poor, compared to all points in history before it.

This isn't quite so obviously true, but it's likely also the case that an unemployed person today has significantly better life outcomes than a menial worker 100 years ago (which means mines or factories). That's what improved automation buys us.

<comment><USER14> > If some of those people are incapable of learning new skills, the net > surplus of wealth that we have created should be sufficient for society to > cover their basic living expenses.

The problem is that roughly half the population is fighting against this kind of social welfare system and they would only be encouraged by PG's blog post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> That was an awful read.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

I found PG's opinion interesting, regardless of whether I agree with him.

Author seems to have unleashed a hateful screed, which optimally includes a world where opinions like PG's are silenced.

I guess the only thing she inspired is my distaste for her creative output.

<comment><USER16> > _The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is > marred by dust and sweat and blood_

It is ironic how often this gets quoted, patronizingly, at people whose faces are _literally_ marred by dust and sweat, by people who work in air- conditioned offices.

<comment><USER15> Empathy for people you have never met will help you find success & happiness in life.

Bigotry, arrogance and prejudice will not.

<comment><USER17> (Personal observation) One has finite amount of empathy. Use it wisely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> PG is having a semantic debate with himself about "income inequality" when the world is using this term to refer to the raging class struggle in America.

The startup world is 100% class-based, worse than anything, and yet PG actually seems to believe that it's a meritocracy. He thinks Stanford PhDs like Larry Page (whose father was a professor) had about the same chance as anyone of getting funding.

He completely ignores the fact that startup funding and elite credentials are _extremely_ limited pies. Harvard only admits a certain number of people. YC only funds a certain number of people. Sequoia only funds as many people as they can sit on the boards of. So who do these people always choose? Other members of their class.

See: [https://www.ycombinator.com/people/](https://www.ycombinator.com/people/)

He seems to have no awareness of what it's like to live outside the elite bubble he was born into. And how could he...

<comment><USER19> Um, you _do_ realize that PG (through YC) is trying very hard to fund people from other backgrounds?

More: You seem to think that VCs decide who to fund based on class. What VCs actually look for is companies that they think will make money.

<comment><USER18> 1\. YC doesn't publish numbers on economic diversity and I'm not aware of any special attempts at funding people from poor backgrounds.

2\. VCs make money and raise funds by getting higher valuations. VCs in later rounds will value companies with elite founders at higher numbers, and are more likely to fund them in the first place. VCs also can't be as easily blamed when elite founders fail, so they're a safer bet, etc.

<comment><USER5> They recently started having office hours specifically for minority groups, and they seem pretty attentive to stuff like this, but I haven't really seen money-where-your-mouth-is action either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> PG is copping a lot of flack for his essay. This is fine, people are allowed to disagree in a free society.

But please, if you're going to respond or comment on any of these articles, keep things civil and pointed at their arguments. Instead of this is a stupid opinion, say why you think their opinion is incorrect.

Also, a (perhaps) less formal article along the same lines was flagged yesterday and it sunk from the front page within minutes. It was rather harsh in its wording but the act of flagging it let no one from the community talk about the opinions expressed or why they were wrong.

</comment><comment><USER21> PGs argument unfortunately ignores that its the majority that makes it possible for the few to create things. He doesn't seem to understand that instead of being bolstered by the success of the few, the opposite is happening and the majority is being left behind. Its sad to say, but his current social position is definitely influencing his thought process.

The author of this essay does the opposite. He ridicules the advancements that start ups have created by focusing on things like Candy Crush. What about Dropbox and Uber. Those have had a profound impact for the positive.

What we should be saying is that income inequality is occurring because there is a skew in the system. The growth we are creating isn't being equally distributed back to the growth generators. We make Candy Crush worth billions, but that billions doesn't do anything for the majority. Nurses and janitors are vital jobs, no arguing that, but we need growth generators as well. It sad that no ones sees this to be the issue and instead we all pick our extreme corner and then drive points to bolster ourselves.

<comment><USER22> Yes, exactly!

No one is arguing against technology or progress. But there is a legitimate issue here; our economic system currently punishes society for progress when it should reward it.

For instance, If automated driving becomes a viable technology, we have just eliminated most of the labour force in the trucking industry. This _should_ be a good thing for society (we've freed up lots of time and labour, likely reduced error, increased efficiency, potentially even eliminated some accidents and saved lives, etc).

But in practice, self-driving trucks would be devastating to the nation. There's close to 1 million people in the US who drive trucks for a living -- it's literally the most common job in nearly every state. ([http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-t...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map- the-most-common-job-in-every-state)). All of these people would be unemployed. Many would likely be shunted into minimum wage, poverty-level employment for the rest of their lives (whatever poverty-level employment is left by then -- those jobs are rapidly disappearing to automation too).

If we continue on our current course without changing something, it will eventually be impossible for companies to create value at all -- so many people will be so poor, that it will be impossible to sell anything to them. How highly can Candy Crush be valued in the future, when 99% of it's ad viewers have zero spending money? How much value can AirBnB capture if 99% of the population is too poor to travel?

The reply that "these people should all just start highly successful businesses" is a cop-out, in much the same way that telling a poor person to "just become a movie star" or "just become a pro basketball player" is. It's simply not possible for most people to do that, regardless of how hard they try. (Startups already have a 90%+ failure rate today. Adding 1 million otherwise untrained individuals won't help that figure). And it's grossly irresponsible of us as a society to shove people into poverty for failing to meet this wildly-unrealistic expectation.

<comment><USER23> And I don't think anyone is arguing that the poor should all go out and try to start businesses once they're automated out of their current job, that would be a very naive viewpoint. PGs essay is saying that society should be discussing how to solve poverty, rather than how to solve economic inequality.

I'm strongly in favor of things like basic income, extensive free retraining programs, and a lot of social support to make sure that every citizen can be free of the desperation of true poverty, and we can maintain social and economic mobility, but there are a lot of ways that attempting to stamp out economic inequality could go really horribly wrong.

<comment><USER21> Out of curiosity, what could go wrong by attempting to stamp out economic inequality. The argument that the top job creators and innovators would leave because they don't have massive income incentives is an extreme in case that is an example.

<comment><USER23> Becoming an unattractive place to come for ambitious people. Becoming an unattractive place for ambitious/wealthy people to stay. Causing inequality to take subtler forms, like power, political influence, personal connections. Civil unrest, as the social contract between people and between government and the people to be radically altered. There are a lot of potentially very severe problems, and it's dangerously naive to think that true equality between all people is something actually achievable unless humanity and human nature undergoes some fundamental changes.

We should be trying to fix poverty, and giving more people an opportunity to be ambitious and take risks without risking ruin, we shouldn't be making it unattractive to be ambitious.

<comment><USER21> I am not advocating for true equality. I am saying that we can distribute wealth to better represent how people contribute to the system. No one is at the top without the support of the millions who pushed them there. Everyone is not ambitious in the business sense. Everyone can't be Michael Jordan, but Michael Jordan wouldn't be with everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yeah this response isn't that great... While I'm not in PG or Thiel's camp (I think inequality is bad for the economy, bad for small business, and bad for quality of life), this author pretty much embodies all the stereotypes that people have about sociologists.

<comment><USER23> If I recall correctly, PG says that it isn't inequality that's bad, but poverty, and that it's poverty we should be focused on eliminating.

Do you disagree with that viewpoint? If so, why?

<comment><USER24> Yes, because the mechanisms which create inequality are the same which allow for poverty.

Targeting poverty alone ignores the root causes, and thus never solves the problem.

You can see this in Africa and third world countries everywhere. Poverty has been reduced by access to capital and markets, investment, education, etc... Not by charity.

<comment><USER23> You don't believe that one can eliminate poverty without eliminating upside for people to reach for? I'm not talking about handouts, necessarily, as a solution to poverty. Education/training, things to provide opportunities to help with economic mobility, and other programs would be applicable.

<comment><USER24> The economic system needs to change to provide economic mobility. As long as capital and the ability to make capital is out of reach of the poorer classes, then economic mobility really isn't possible.

Expanding education and training will bring us to a higher technological level, and provide prosperity for society, however that won't ensure the working classes will have a 'fair' share. If everyone's income is increased, but the distribution of resources stays the same, the poor will still be poor because costs will simply climb as their income does. Furthermore, every job can be commoditized. When 7/11 jobs are automated, then the next lowest class could be programmers. If there are too many programmers, wages will be run down to the level of today's 7/11 workers. Society as a whole may be more advanced, but that won't prevent people from becoming indentured workers. Just as today we are more advanced than 1960, but it's harder for the lower classes to get by.

The distribution is the problem, poverty is a symptom.

<comment><USER23> I don't think you have your economic mental model quite right - costs don't increase like that unless the cost of production increases to match, which only really happens with goods manufactured domestically where labor accounts for most of the cost. Since we have a global trade system, it is possible to have a very skewed distribution and have even the poorest be quite comfortably well off, if the country is very rich. As the third world gets wealthier, though, that might cause rising goods prices, as they demand higher wages. But that's not related to the distribution of wealth within one country.

And you don't really need your own monetary capital to have economic mobility - for the poor, time and expertise is the capital. Good public education increases that expertise, and is one of the best ways to provide economic mobility. Also, if more money is necessary than one can save up, there are always small business loans from banks.

<comment><USER24> > costs don't increase like that unless the cost of production increases to > match, which only really happens with goods manufactured domestically where > labor accounts for most of the cost.

Don't forget about transportation costs, retailing costs, etc... Most of the 'poor' are working poor, working in warehouses, restaurants, retail stores, and other minimum wage jobs. If you bring up the wage floor, everything gets more expensive (even stuff bought at Walmart) and that hits the poor, reducing their gains (however if it's enough to reduce inequality, they'll gain something, however small).

> And you don't really need your own monetary capital to have economic > mobility - for the poor, time and expertise is the capital. Good public > education increases that expertise, and is one of the best ways to provide > economic mobility. Also, if more money is necessary than one can save up, > there are always small business loans from banks.

Economic mobility only exists as long as higher quality jobs remain unfilled. The US is more educated than ever before, yet inequality has increased since the 1950's. Education certainly brings society to a higher technological level over time, but it's not a given that it reduces poverty or inequality.

This phenomenon has been well documented and can be seen in many developing countries where people are actually over-educated relative to the types of work demanded for economic growth. For example, if a country has no roads or electric grid, many industries cannot develop until that infrastructure is built, meaning there's more demand for construction workers than university graduates.

And of course, the missing piece between education and work that doesn't yet exist is capital. Without capital to develop new industries, you're limited to only the amount of work that is currently demanded, so education will never bring you to a higher equilibrium, it'll simply make the educated person more competitive within the market.

Anyhow, many economists have written entire books ( _cough_ Piketty) and papers about inequality and economic growth. In the developing world there are plenty of examples of economies that are stagnant because of inequality. Even within the US' own history, you have examples of high and low inequality, and the resulting economic growth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This critique seems to focus on startups as something specific to the tech scene as opposed to the wider picture of small business startups across the U.S. I suppose though that Graham also is focusing specifically on that category as well.

There's approximately half a million businesses being created each year in the U.S. (that number used to be higher) [1], the vast majority of which are not tech focused. They are getting credit to do this from a variety of different ways, but not normally from investors. It's mostly the credit card companies profiting off of these ventures as many small businesses self-fund through personal credit cards.

We (Kiva) have a fair amount of data on this as our focus is on interest free loans for startups for poverty alleviation, though we are increasingly also funding social impact small businesses in the U.S. I do wonder if our model of charitable crowd-funding small businesses [2] will have a dent on the overall way startups are funded in the U.S., there's a lot of other folks doing it now asides us but probably too early to tell. I guess point is that both parties here seem to be discussing a broader set (all startups) when really actually just focusing on the minority of tech startups in the bay area and it'd be worthwhile to consider the broader U.S. picture and/or the global numbers.

[1] [https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Startup%20Rates.pdf](https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Startup%20Rates.pdf) [2] [https://zip.kiva.org](https://zip.kiva.org)

</comment><comment><USER26> The article kicks off with a trying-to-be-snarky intro:

>> penned by self-described "essayist" Paul Graham

Well, he writes a lot of essays that are read by a lot of people. Seems apt.

</comment><comment><USER27> Holly Wood - her real name, it seems - is just a talentless troll trying to get a PhD in gender studies and realising she's hurtling into her mid-20s with no nogotiable skills and a bitter hatred of the world.

[http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/people/holly- wood](http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/people/holly-wood)

<comment><USER28> Proving her point nicely here I see.

</comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I posted a criticism here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10833663](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10833663)

It's indeed a lazy article.

<comment><USER19> I recommend that people follow vezzy-fnord's link. It's worth reading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's like someone from a future in which they can perfectly model the human brain and predict it's reactions wrote an article designed to perfectly stimulate all of the anger centers of my brain.

(I'm referring to the qz article, not pg's essay)

</comment><comment><USER30> I think I'm very late at the party, but anyway I'm hoping that someone educate me.

I still can't agree with PG in that wealth is something that can be created. When a woodworker makes a chair to get money, he's merely trading his skill and time with money. The net wealth of the world hasn't increased. The perceived "win-win" situation only exists because there's a partiality in different types of resources: some people only have time, some people only have food, and some others only have iron, etc. If the world gets truly homogeneous, there's no way to create value. In reality, people are not homogeneous, so they keep trading, but still the total wealth isn't increasing. i.e. the economy is almost always a zero-sum game.

It's not a zero-sum game only in two cases: 1. When we take resources from the outside world. This typically happens when we mine a natural resource. Or 2. When we do unfair trading with people who somehow we don't deem as proper "human". This is pretty much a form of slavery or extortion. i.e. the economy is not a zero-sum game when exploitation happens.

I don't think PG is advocating the second type of the economy, so I don't understand how he can think we're still creating wealth.

<comment><USER31> What if you're better at making chairs, and I'm better at making shoes? As you say, partiality of resources, but how is that trade zero-sum? You benefit, I benefit. To be zero-sum, one of us would need to lose.

<comment><USER30> So you're saying wealth is actually something like happiness? Then I can see it can be created, but I thought he was talking about something materialistic.

<comment><USER31> Kind of. I'm not sure how I would categorize it, really. "Wealth" is abstract, but shoes are not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Agreed with this part at least:

"But what the market deems valuable is not necessarily aligned with what is ultimately good for us as a society, or even what we want."

Negative externalities that harm the public good aren't factored into markets until a price is put on the value of public goods. When no enforcement mechanism is present, or at least decent incentives properly aligned, then the public good keeps getting screwed and we end up with climate change.

<comment> vezzy-fnord No. You're still stuck in a 1950s Samuelson-Hicks framework that's wide open for naive market failure theory. This is before the Coasian and public choice revolutions. Negative externalities _are_ factored as considerations in the legal institutions of property, tort and contract law that lead to resolving, among other things, environmental disputes.

You're also using "public good" incorrectly. You mean "social utility", I think. But social utility is not quantifiable for the simple reason that it's not possible to perform interpersonal comparison of utility.

For the record, you can simultaneously be laissez-faire and an environmentalist. See the Property and Environment Research Center: [http://www.perc.org/](http://www.perc.org/)

<comment><USER33> > social utility is not quantifiable

That's generally true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a value. Social utility shouldn't be ignored simply because it cannot be assigned a convenient numeric value.

<comment> vezzy-fnord I'm making a more subtle point than that. It's that the social utility is determined by people revealing their preferences and participating in an institutional framework of voluntary and mutual exchange (whether you want to call this a "market" or not - markets don't have to be capitalistic contrary to popular belief, see Proudhon and other thinkers). One cannot speculate what these preferences will be _ex ante_. Else you would be imposing an unjustified upper bound on the heterogeneity of them.

The trick is creating an arrangement such that people can settle grievances _endogenously_. An exogenous body can't determine social utility since its actions change the expectations of its constituents, perhaps creating perverse incentives. It has also no way of determining what constitutes a welfare gain or welfare loss. Actually the rather special role of the state in being the arbiter of law makes it rather biased towards generating welfare losses via cronyism.

<comment><USER33> > markets don't have to be capitalistic

Ok, if you're using such a broad definition of "market", then I probably agree with most of what you just said. The big problem I see is:

> creating an arrangement such that people can settle grievances endogenously

That is great if it actually happens. I personally believe a lot the current political situation was caused by a total lack of these endogenous corrective forces. When people observe that no such arrangement actually exists and grievances are not actually settled, operant conditioning takes over and we end up with people who think they are somehow smarter/better than other people.

Arranging everything so incentives are properly aligned would be great. In practice, we don't actually know how to make that happen reliably, so recognizing all of the needs and desires of society is important, even when we don't know how to evaluate something other than "we consider it good" or "I just want that my future". Yes, this could end up causing problems - <USER2> are fallible and sometimes we don;'t know how to explain something other than "my intuition says so".

Note that I'm suggesting that non-quantifiable criteria should be _considered_ , not that they should be given any special weight.

> It's actions change the expectations of its constituents, perhaps creating > perverse incentives.

For this, I'm going with Mark Blyth's response[1] to a similar statement about modern economic thought.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCcoF5K0SM#t=1437](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCcoF5K0SM#t=1437)

<comment> vezzy-fnord _Ok, if you 're using such a broad definition of "market", then I probably agree with most of what you just said._

It's not broad. It's that most people conflate various discrete ideas.

 _I personally believe a lot the current political situation was caused by a total lack of these endogenous corrective forces._

You're right, and my position is that much of this is because of exogenous interference. For example, people like to talk about the post-WWII "Golden Age of Capitalism" that involved Keynesian stimulus policies to one degree or another (though there were exceptions, like Eisenhower's response to the 1958 recession). What people often conveniently omit is that the Federal Register was only a seventh the size of what it is today: [https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2015/05/Federal- Regi...](https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2015/05/Federal-Register- Pages-Published-1936-2014.pdf)

 _For this, I 'm going with Mark Blyth's response to a similar statement about modern economic thought._

You seem to think I subscribe to rational expectations or something. No, it's a basic public choice and regime uncertainty point. If anything, Blyth's comment is overly myopic and his complete dismissal of "time inconsistencies" is unjustified. The Cantillon effects of monetary policy alone are well- acknowledged across the political spectrum, and that's a straightforward example of temporal disequilibrium.

EDIT: Another contradiction is the Greenspan put.

<comment><USER33> I think you're missing the point re: Blyth's comment. (I probably should have explained more about my reason for in for including it)

It doesn't matter if a theory is _correct_ when "nobody knows what that sentence means!"

Blyth isn't dismissing the concept of time inconsistency - he's pointing out that models that rely on people making "rational" decisions are total junk if nobody actually understands the required concepts. Models that assume people would change their behavior because of time inconsistency should never have been considered in the first place because most people don't know what the term even means.

In a similar manner, I'm suggesting that while it would be _nice_ if we could set up "markets" that self correct or allow problems to be handled locally, this might not be possible in practice.

<comment> vezzy-fnord Oh, a basic criticism of modeling assumptions is orderly. Though, your particular example of people not changing their behavior because they're unfamiliar with a specific terminology is absolutely baffling. The phenomenon exists regardless of whether people are familiar with the lexicon.

Whether or not it's possible to set up markets that self-correct is a different matter. They already do to various degrees even in current hampered regimes, modulo business cycles. Though, we must extend the same skepticism towards state attempts at equilibration if we are to be consistent. But far too much doubt becomes an analytical nihilism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Aargh! the top comment here is miles better at (re)presenting the arguments of both articles than this rubbish - which seems at best to be an inarticulate rage against the idea that wealth creation should lead to rich people.

PG's original argument seems to be - We like wealth creation. We pay the price of rich people, in order to get that. Wealth creation, as well as wealth _release_ is happening in this generation on vast scales, mediated by technology, software and startups.

Pg concludes there is not much we can do to fix the wealth inequality gap from being created in the first place. And he fails to point out there are second order fixes that can alleviate inequality if that is our goal. In other words politics has created the SV milieu over forty years, and will be instrumental in handling the Pikkety fallout.

This article seems to claim that because Candy Crush makers made hundreds of millions of dollars, that is exemplary and desirable, and the intention of pg and his Silicon Valley cabal. none of which is bourne out by the original article.

Billionaires are a symptom of the failing of a market. No one should be able to capture that much value themselves. More Startups should create more wealth, yes, but they should also prevent monopolies from other startups.

We need more "startups" in all walks of life, started by people from all walks of life (not just MIT). Because, and this is an important point briskly touched on, the ideal size of the firm is shrinking, and the traditional jobs will not be there.

PS Has anyone else noticed that PG's essays are more and more like listening in to one half of a Socratic phone call, where the pupils questions are inferred from the half you can hear?

</comment><comment><USER35> She's a great writer, but wow is she wrong about everything. In her head, the market decides Candy Crush is $7b because a few VCs decided so. That's not how this works. The market is willing to pay $7b for Candy Crush because millions upon millions of people download it, enjoy it, and look at ads on it, which generate revenue. At the same time, those users' enjoyment is the value it created.

Holly doesn't think that's real value. She thinks she's a better judge of what value is and isn't. And that's where this becomes hilarious. Because Paul Graham respects "the poors" to spend their money and time on what they think is worthwhile. But not Holly Wood. She thinks that millions of people downloading and using and enjoying Candy Crush isn't valuable because she personally thinks Candy Crush is a stupid waste of time. She knows what's really good for people. Those people themselves, they have no idea.

No wonder she hates libertarians. She's a totalitarian. And the funniest part for the rest of us is she doesn't know it.

</comment><comment><USER36> If someone is motivated by altruistic reasons, then they'll be willing to do the same work for less than someone doing it for profit reasons. That creates inequality, but it's inequality that the "loser" _wants_ , because they're altruistic.

It seems weird to choose a job for altruistic reasons, then turn around and complain you aren't making as much as people who don't have a strong desire to do something even without compensation.

<comment><USER37> Which brings us to the question, are they truly altruistic?

I haven't seen Gandhi, Mandela or Teresa complain that they didn't make millions out of their work.

Which finally brings us to the answer, these people aren't altruistic, they seem to latch on to whatever job they get, get stuck there, and then try to paint the altruism color to make them feel good. Deep down knowing very well that its the money they desire.

<comment><USER36> Someone can want multiple things. But all else being equal, the one who only wants money has an advantage over the one who wants money and feel-goodies, an honorable job, etc.

(Incidentally, it's not always the people complaining, it's activists on their behalf. Also, even if you would continue to work for a low amount because of altruistic reasons, there's still rational value in complaining insofar as you expect the complaining to result in a higher salary. But the rational sell- interest in asking for more money doesn't have any bearing on the ethical question of "should they get more money", and for that, we should remember that they _chose_ the lower money position because of fringe benefits that higher paid positions didn't have.

Note further that this only applies to the reference class of "teachers, nurses, academia, science, childcare etc" that can plausibly be said to forgo greater value jobs for altruistic reasons. For someone that can't land a well- paying job because they aren't skilled enough, we need a separate analysis. But the argument OP tries to make that what they produce is still valuable to society wouldn't go through as easily; you could still say "everyone is valuable" or some such thing, but it has less power.)

<comment><USER37> This extends beyond this altruism argument.

>>But all else being equal, the one who only wants money has an advantage over the one who wants money and feel-goodies

A guy 'X' who is frugal, saves and invests is going to be richer than a guy 'Y' who might be earning the same(but making financial decisions), in the same job, after a few years.

Priorities matter. At the end one must learn to be happy with their decisions.

<comment><USER36> That's what I was going for, yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't agree with the author at all, there are some interesting points buried under an over abundance of ranting and vitriol waged at one person. It also, I think, attacks Paul Graham for points he is not even making in the original article. However, those tweets she brought up are very dismaying and show a very odd attitude, that I don't think was found in the original essay.

</comment><comment><USER39> To sum up, with less vitriol:

Paul Graham:

> Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic > inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it

Holly Wood:

> [Paul Graham] assumes people who are not rich are not driven, and so he > ignores...the probability that the poors are poor because they are busy > being driven at enterprises that people like Paul Graham think are > valueless. Like childcare. Or science. Or academia. Or education.

</comment><comment><USER40>
        They might believe market success is a fairly
        ridiculous barometer for measuring societal value.

I'm not sure what a better measure would be. People will pay for things that add value, and getting a bunch of people to pay you is the definition of "market success". Conversely, if people won't pay, it's because you're not adding value.

</comment><comment><USER41> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility) are mutually exclusive in real world;

</comment><comment><USER42> I will never understand why Authors let their bias and vitriol ruin their essays when they are trying to make a legitimate point. I simply cannot take an essay at face value when it is riddled with anger and emotion.

Not to say emotion isn't a valid point, and doesn't make for a good read, but it completely undermines the objectivity of the author and defeats the point.

<comment><USER31> When you can't attack the argument, attack the man.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Those tweets by PG are pretty embarrassing, if I was told they were a parody of SV culture, I'd think it was going too far.

</comment><comment><USER44> the author must not have heard of the broken window fallacy.

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt explains it. Available free online

</comment><comment><USER45> So uh... the author claims he got paid $500 for this extended ad hominem attack.

How do I get someone to pay me that much for better quality content?

</comment><comment><USER28> Oh look. The people beholden to the people the author is ragging on dismiss the article without engaging the points by and large.

</comment><comment><USER28> In which a bunch of men can't deal with a woman dissing their style.

</comment><comment><USER46> yayyyyy really great counter arguments..how can something like candy crush saga be more valuable than a teacher? SV economy will head down in a couple of years.

</comment><comment><USER46> yayyy. .. how can candy crush saga be valued more than an elementary school teacher? Something is very wrong and anyone sensible can see it.</comment>


Happy Birthday, Stanley Kubrick - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/07/happy-birthda-1.html <comment><USER2> _[...] the essence of Kubrick's dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence._

source: last sentence in this article from Nicholas Carr: <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google></comment>


Introducing JS.js - <AUTHOR> http://tatiyants.com/?p=1180 a revolutionary new JavaScript library that could very well change the way you view web development <comment><USER2> Vapor.js is way better. I find JS.js far too intrusive. "Be awesome"? It's just that kind of thinking that keeps people from really getting things done.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've looked at Vapor. To be honest, I found it to be without much substance.

<comment><USER3> Oh, the lulz keep coming :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I actually learned something from reading the source code of JS.js: that there is such a thing as the European Union Public License:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad to be of service :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice joke. But do you really mean to critique the current state of JS library development? Why? Personally, I'm thankful for the bounty of useful libraries out there. Long may jackasses with keyboards [sic] keep shipping *.js.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Pedro. I definitely didn't mean this as a critique of JS library development. I'm actually very happy to see so many useful JavaScript libraries out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> /* DICKS.js */

D=8;

if(8===D) { document.write('DICKS.js'); }

You're welcome.

</comment><comment><USER7> Jokes Aside. Who doesn't really like these JS libraries? Are they making your life easier? Umm Yea. Did you have to spend the time re-inventing the wheel. Umm No. Why is he complaining then?</comment>


How do i find a remote job - <AUTHOR>

    I would like to know how to go about getting a remote job where i can be of real help building something really useful, plus point if they happen to be at startups, I really require it to be remote when taking into consideration the fact that my current location does not make it tenable for me to work in locations that might provide such job offers. Skilled in Python/Django framework with a surface depth experience in Javascript and Java.

   I would seriously appreciate any tip or suggestions, I currently feel  that i have not been learning anything new or being of real service to the world as of late.
 <comment><USER2> Here is 7000+ remote jobs in startups [https://angel.co/jobs#find/f!%7B%22remote%22%3Atrue%7D](https://angel.co/jobs#find/f!%7B%22remote%22%3Atrue%7D)

You might have to make a free account if you don't have one.</comment>


Spammer asks us to remove his spam due to bad Google ranking - <AUTHOR> http://files.lukasklein.com/spammer-asking-to-remove-spam.png

<comment><USER2> We had the same issue as this guy, except it had been carried out by a specialist SEO firm on our behalf. Naturally we had no clue that their 'legitimate techniques' to promote us across the net were incredibly dodgy. That's why we paid an agency after all, to let them handle it, as experts, with best practice techniques. Unfortunately 'best practice' to SEO 'gurus' appears to be whatever blackhat method is in vogue.

We disengaged from them (read: got very angry at them) and had to clean it all up ourselves. The closest analogy I can think of is: it's like an oil spill. You can never be rid of the long lasting damage. Links get everywhere, and webmasters never respond to takedown requests.

But we've learnt a lot about SEO in the process and can undertake the task from our own moral standpoint. In the future we shouldn't have these kinds of issues.

</comment><comment><USER3> Quite awesomely ironic. I feel very sorry for the guy who has to contact site owners one by one and deal with email answers after their Perl script has automated a few million comments all over the net...</comment>


Venture firms struggling to raise funds, especially for early-stage startups - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/11/venture-capital-fundraising-2011/

<comment><USER2> Oh no, not now, not yet!</comment>


Feminism and Programming Languages - <AUTHOR> http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/re-feminism-and-programming-languages

<comment><USER2> Interesting. I am rather sceptical about the likelihood that this will lead to concrete, useful results. But the discussion and explanation from the author in the site's comments convinced me that it's a question worth exploring and she's doing it with an open mind and full understanding of the concepts she plans to challenge.

There's ample precedence in math and logic for ideas that seemed foolish at first glance but turned out to lead to fruitful results. My favorite example is imaginary numbers: just ad something that in your previous system is impossible to its axioms, and it turns out to be not only logically consistent but also eventually to have practical applications.

</comment><comment><USER3> An interesting approach to this might be a language which has first-class constructs for probabilistic programming techniques - something like ProbLog, for example [http://dtai.cs.kuleuven.be/problog/](http://dtai.cs.kuleuven.be/problog/)

</comment><comment><USER4> > This led me to wonder what a feminist programming language would look like, > one that might allow you to create entanglements

What is an "entanglement" in the context of things that programming languages can create?

</comment><comment><USER5> Discussed three days ago; 76 comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893756](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893756)

</comment><comment><USER6> First I thought it was a parody but I'm started to think that they are talking in a serious way.

What's next? Feminist quantum mechanics?

</comment><comment><USER7> This originated from 4chan</comment>


Sleeper CES hit: Emo's great-sounding "invisible loudspeakers" for TVs and laptops  - <AUTHOR> http://technologizer.com/2009/01/26/these-speakers-sound-great-and-theyreinvisible/

<comment><USER2> Neat idea; unfortunate name.

</comment><comment><USER3> That looks like a great way to get a cinema experience from a laptop. Now, if only they changed the name, so I wouldn't have to say that my screen has an Emo on top of it.</comment>


Why does dividing by zero in JavaScript result in Infinity? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/q/21893525/1216976

<comment><USER2> Not adequately covered in the linked conversation is the fact that division by zero is undefined in mathematics. The logic goes like this: if dividing A by zero to produce B is allowed, this implies that multiplying B times zero equals A. Not a rational implication, therefore it's undefined.</comment>


Using git on a subversion project - <AUTHOR> http://vbsteven.com/archives/587

<comment><USER2> Very interesting. I have tried combining Git and Dropbox. That eliminates the need to provision a git server and allows you to mesh with people having less experience with Git.</comment>


Twitter Reportedly Under Federal Investigation - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/twitter-reportedly-under-federal-investigation/39474/

<comment><USER2> The "platform" that Twitter is restricting access to is a website, with a bunch of content put on it by users of that website. IANAL, but I don't see what rights to that data could possibly be claimed by a third party.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah, but who isn't these days?</comment>


VirtualBox broken on Ivy Bridge Macbooks after 10.8.2 and Firmware Update - <AUTHOR> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4311118?start=15&tstart=0

<comment><USER2> Basically:

Oracle: We reported the bug a long time ago and still Apple released the update.

Apple: ...

Me: How the fuck am I going to work tomorrow? Maybe going full Vagrant wasn't a good idea after all :(

<comment><USER3> (Vagrant creator here)

Ugh. This is a pretty bad situation. I took a look at the VirtualBox Darwin driver source code as well as the relevant method in the Darwin kernel (`host_vmxon`), and I can't see a workaround that I can meaningfully or confidently contribute. I'm hoping for a quick turnaround by Oracle or Apple on something here. :(

For the future, I've been working on VMWare support for some time now, and it should be ready in the next few months. These sorts of problems will be mitigated then by saying "oh, well you can just use Vagrant with X instead for now" (where X is some other virtualization layer).

For now, I'm sorry, I don't think there is anything I can do here.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for looking into this and working so hard on Vagrant. It's an awesome product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is another benefit of still being on Lion. I didn't have to deal with weird homebrew issues and now I don't have to deal with this. I have not upgraded to Mountain Lion on any of my machines, and the way things are going I'm probably not going to until forced.

<comment><USER6> > I didn't have to deal with weird homebrew issues...

Just out of curiosity: which weird issues? The only "issues" I had involved installing XQuartz, and chowning /usr/local/ back to me[1]

[1]: [http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/27985816073/the- hitchhiker...](http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/27985816073/the-hitchhikers- guide-to-riding-a-mountain-lion)

<comment><USER5> I don't actually know any details. All I know is that when several of my coworkers upgraded to 10.8 components of their homebrew setup stopped working. It may have been related to ruby.

<comment><USER7> If I remember correctly, I had to reinstall xcode to get it working again

<comment><USER8> And install command line tools within Xcode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The (annoying, but working) workaround is the following:

I imported my Vagrant-managed Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS VM into a trial copy of Parallels Desktop 8. I then logged into the VM manually using the Parallels VM window using the default Vagrant user / password (vagrant/vagrant) and changed the password for my custom Vagrantfile dev login. Then in Parallels I switched the networking on the VM to Bridge Mode (so I can access it via IP address on my local network).

Remarkably everything in the VM worked and I'm back to coding. Would like to see a quick fix for VirtualBox so I can get back to my Vagrant awesomeness.

</comment><comment><USER9> Can anyone confirm this update does not break VirtualBox on the mid 2011 Macbook Air i7? I rely on Vagrant and am not feeling confident enough to update since the issue appears to be related to VT-x on the CPU

<comment><USER10> For what it's worth, I just updated to 4.1.22 on such a machine and a snapshotted VM resumed without any trouble.

Edit: And then also to 4.2.0 without trouble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> And somehow VMware Fusion doesn't have any problems after the same update ... sometimes you do get what you pay for (then again, I remember when an earlier Fusion update bricked itself, so YMMV).

<comment> dorian-graph A main reason many of us use Virtualbox is because of Vagrant. If the same thing was easily possible (Is it?) with Parallels or VMWare we'd use those exclusively. I have licenses for both and use Parallels for any Windows- required work.

<comment><USER3> Vagrant will work with Parallels and VMWare in the next 12 months.

<comment><USER12> How are the chances of a version working with libvirt/kvm?

Would be willing to help.

<comment><USER13> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4408090>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It seems as though it will take a few more of these before Apple users learn what Windows users learned awhile ago -- there's rarely any good reason to upgrade any software, particularly your operating system, immediately upon release.

</comment><comment><USER15> Has anyone installed the relevant firmware update <https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1590> for 2010 MacBook Airs? I'd like to know if that introduces the same bug.

<comment><USER16> <https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/10965> indicates that it's the Ivy Bridge skus, so I think your 2010 Air is ok. Caveat emptor: I do NOT own a 2010 MacBook Air.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> We will have a hard time coming <https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/10965>

</comment><comment><USER18> From vbox forums, someone at Oracle:

"That said, I believe we're now far enough along to say that there will highly likely be at least a test build pretty soon. Certainly sooner than in two weeks..."

<https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?p=236591#p236591></comment>


Who invented e-mail? Inside Shiva Ayyadurai's legal war against his critics - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/06/who-invented-e-mail-shiva-ayyadurai-history/ <comment><USER2> OK, this story again...

There's a quote in the article that, I think, also accurately summarizes it:

 _To people like Haigh, the computer historian, this is a case of simply defining "e-mail" in such a way that nothing else fits._

 _"He is trying to make a definition of e-mail which would exclude everything before his system," said Haigh in an interview. "That's not how you get to do it. The person who says they invented an airplane in 1918 doesn't get to say, 'It's only an airplane if it has six windows, it's built with metal, and it has a retracting undercarriage.'"_

This guy got a copyright on a computer program he named EMAIL, and he's milking the story for everything it's got. Hardly surprising, if that is one's one claim to fame.

<comment><USER3> He seems to be operating under 3 main delusions (with a healthy dose of caste- related inferiority complex mixed in):

1\. Confusion about the differences (or even the fact that they are different) between copyright, trademark, and patent. He copyrighted some software called "EMAIL", which anyone could do. That doesn't give him any ownership of the term "email" (as a trademark would), nor does it register him as the inventor in any way (as a patent would).

2\. A belief that being (maybe) the first to name something X makes him the inventor of X. (At best, he could possibly be described as "one of the first to coin the term 'email'.")

3\. A belief that naming something X subsequently defines what X is. Hence, he disregards all predecessors as "not X because they are not exactly the same as what I called X".

Over time, his caste-related inferiority complex seems to have evolved into a strong mistrust of recognised authority ("What does Vint Cerf know?") and then further into a conspiracy about the "military-industrial complex".

He seems more sadly deluded than an intentional charlatan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What a reprehensible individual. It's sad that people like him are able to abuse the legal system for a living.

Dude is clearly a narcissist to boot. Nobody publishes a book with their own photo on the front to talk about how great they are, while simultaneously having contributed basically nothing of value to society, without having some serious problems.

<comment><USER5> It's a shame, as the guy holds four degrees.

The reference to his own background (caste etc) and accusations of racism might hint that he has a chip on the shoulder..

<comment><USER6> It is sad. He was clearly a brilliant kid back then. I don't know any details of his email system, but if it really was just as comprehensive as the existing email systems, but developed without any knowledge or input from the existing email systems, that's a spectacular achievement. It's absolutely something to be proud of, and I can totally understand that at the time, as a 14 year old, he believed he invented something new.

But he's a grown man now. He should know better. If he's so smart, he should realize that he wasn't the first. But instead, he's leveraging a lie to claim undeserved fame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is mentioned in the article, but the news hook here is that Ayyadurai is suing Techdirt for libel in a case that Techdirt describes as, "Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life"

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170111/11440836465/techd...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170111/11440836465/techdirts- first-amendment-fight-life.shtml)

<comment><USER8> And he apparently got a $750K settlement from Gawker from an earlier suit. (It seems to have been one of a couple of other settlements at the time Gawker was going out of business because of the Hulk Hogan case. I assume that the bankruptcy trustees or whoever just wanted suits to go away so they could sell off the company cleanly.)

<comment><USER9> He shared the same Thiel-funded lawyer as Hogan in the Google suit and won't say if Thiel's funding this one as well since he's using the same lawyer again:

[https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/peter-thiel-wont- say-...](https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/peter-thiel-wont-say-if-hes- bankrolling-lawsuit-against-1791652277/amp)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> His milking of the 'caste' and 'race' (which Chomsky fully endorses) is cringeworthy. Never mind the fact that his parents were part of the elite who did manage to leave the colony.

<comment><USER11> He went to MIT. It's nothing short of astonishing that he can claim to not be part of the elite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> No mention that he was "married" to Fran Drescher? [1] I wonder what she thinks about all this...

[1] [http://komonews.com/news/entertainment/actress-fran- drescher...](http://komonews.com/news/entertainment/actress-fran-drescher- splits-from-husband)

</comment><comment> mark-r I used to wonder if I had invented email, on a large timesharing system in 1975. Then I found the history of Internet email and I realized how silly I was.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm really unsure why something like that would be important to anyone. I define myself by what I am doing and what I hope to achieve. What I did 35 years ago belongs to a person I no longer am.

<comment><USER14> This is talked about in the article. A lot of his businesses rely on the claim that he invented email to gain more customers.

<comment><USER13> I helped write the Swanwick En Route Short Term Collision Alert System that covers most airports in the south of England about 20 years ago. I primarily use it to terrify people who are about to go on holiday.

"OOOh you're about to fly through my code!" :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "according to Ayyadurai, an RFC, or Request for Comment, is not 'a computer program or code or a system,' and so is presumably unfit to be historical evidence"

This comes as a surprise to anyone who has had to debug actual email code before. Very recently I had to reference RFC 561, 821 and 1341 when dealing with a bug breaking attached CSV files.

He may have invented an "email" program but he certainly did not invent email as we currently know. History will not remember this pretender.

</comment><comment><USER16> Searching "Who invented email?" on Google is terrifying.

<comment><USER17> FFS that is just wrong and Vint Cerf should be able point that as he worked for companies that did mail before this clowns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Total Bolocks I was working for Dialcom / Telecom Gold in the 1980's on email and dialup services and they had email before 1982

</comment><comment><USER18> This is the guy who slacked off in all your college classes and then claimed he did all the work on the one group project that he never showed up for.

Why does anyone insist on writing anything about him anymore? He clearly only wants to the media attention. Haven't we learned that feeding media-vampires only creates monsters we aren't equipped to deal with?

<comment><USER19> well, no, that metaphor doesn't apply well at all.

he's clearly intelligent and does work, but he's also clearly twisting the definition to get his name in the history books.

why he needs this despite his intelligence i dont know

<comment><USER18> He needs the attention because it's what drives him, hence the project-credit metaphor.

Intelligence is only as useful as its application and spinning your wheels trying to take credit by bending a definition is not the best use of time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > even though his code had little impact beyond the university. Mainstream > tech history books don't even mention Ayyadurai—unless you count the several > books Ayyadurai has written about himself

Today on HN, "A Wolfram is born"..

</comment><comment><USER20> Kim Mast developed an email system in 1974 on a computer system called PLATO at the University of Illinois with thousands of users using 512x512 graphics computer terminals which were located throughout the country and had output speeds of 180 characters/sec.

[http://www.thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm](http://www.thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm)

Also a year prior to that a forum system was developed by David Woolley

There is a current version still working on this system: [https://cyber1.org](https://cyber1.org)

</comment><comment><USER21> Is the idea of self-ownership of ideas a modern / western invention? How old is copyright / trademark / patent as a broad concept?

<comment><USER22> There were trade secrets prior to any official patents system.

For instance, a family of physicians that kept their invention of forceps used in delivering babies, a secret for more than 100 years:

[http://mentalfloss.com/article/85527/show-tell- obstetrical-f...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/85527/show-tell-obstetrical- forceps-invention-kept-secret-more-century)

<comment><USER23> technically, trade secrets are roughly the opposite of patents. Trade secrets are "tell no one, and no one can use it cause they don't know about it", whereas patents are "tell everyone, and the government will make sure no one can use it for a while", with the advantage of patents being that a) the public will be able to use it once your patent term is up, while b) the government becomes the enforcer, rather then your ability to keep the secret. Monopolies are largely recognized as a potential negative, but in this case, patents provide a way to encourage publicizing knowledge. Without patents, companies would attempt to keep everything a secret, arguably a negative to society.

<comment><USER21> The idea of publicising knowledge and then saying 'it's illegal to do anything with this knowledge' feels intuitively wrong but I can't explain succinctly why. 20 years also seems too long as well but again, hard to explain why. I understand that monopolies are wrong, but so is teaching a man to fish and telling him he can't make a rod from a known good design for 20 years.

<comment><USER23> it's a tradeoff. Which is better, saying "here's how to make a better fishing rod, but I get to be the only one to make it for 20 years" or "I know how to make a better fishing rod, but I'm not going to tell anyone else, this knowledge may be lost at any point, and I'm going to be the only one making them for the next 50 years."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In other /mildlyinteresting thoughts, Did anyone ever run a FidoNet node?

</comment><comment><USER5> yikes: [https://yourstory.com/2015/02/shiva- ayyadurai/](https://yourstory.com/2015/02/shiva-ayyadurai/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Who cares? I think that's the more important question here.</comment>


Covid Is Accelerating a Global Censorship Crisis - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-covid-is-accelerating-a-global-censorship-crisis/ <comment><USER2> To play devil's advocate, isn't it a little bit generic to just name a few instances of abuse of censorship, rather than working with data to determine to what degree misinformation rather than truthful information was targeted? Because just from a bird's eye view, if one plots the press freedom index against the covid-19 death rate, I don't think you'd get a plot that the author would expect based on this article.

I don't think the article tackles hard and serious questions around speech. Banning the doctor in China from speaking out was extremely bad, but say, what about a potential effect of stopping a panic in Wuhan and people from fleeing the region and taking the virus everywhere?

I don't necessarily mean this as a defense of censorship but rather as taking a genuinely critical view of failures in our systems.

<comment><USER3> The problem with your proposal is that your methodology is a false approach. Freedom of thought (and it's close corollary, freedom of speech) is foundational to all inquiry — if I must adhere to some idea, I'm not free to think, and if I'm not free to think, then philosophy (inquiry) can't exist. So we know that censorship is wrong as a matter of principle, and we don't need any extra data beyond the a priori arguments of the type above.

<comment><USER4> There is degrees to freedom of speech and until the chinese invent telepathy, freedom of thought is preserved, always.

But to the first point I just made; you can have freedom of opinions and freedom of facts. The former means you are free to state your opinion on things and it's something you get for example in germany. The later means you can state anything you want as a fact, regardless of if it's true and if you know it's true. That part is something most countries, even the US, regulate to some extend (false advertising in medical supplies for example).

Spreading false facts about a pandemic ought to be regulated by law, you do not have freedom of fact and never had it. You continue to have freedom of opinion in a lot of countries and IMO the number of countries that have it hasn't change since the pandemic started.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think censorship doesn't really work anymore. It is maybe restricted to certain demographics, but we have pluralistic sources of information that cannot be undone completely. So we are lucky, but censorship can still do a lot of damage.

<comment><USER6> While I certainly hope you're right, I'm always hesitant to become complacent in areas related to censorship.</comment></comment>


Submanifold Spare Convolutional Networks - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.01307 <comment><AUTHOR> Currently reading this. I'm really interested in the subject, as current work is limited by the fact that GPUs can make dense matrix multiplications really, really fast, but aren't great at much else (as far as I'm aware). Sparsity seems essential to scaling networks up to bigger sizes & datasets, and the paper shows one way of doing this.</comment>


The shape of things to come: the new architecture of Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/01/apple-facebook-google-headquarters-architecture

<comment><USER2> Seems that there should be a purpose to the specific attributes of the architecture. Pixar has a pretty unique space as well. One design goal was minimizing the distance to any other person or place, while maintaining a central courtyard where chance encounters can lead to serendipitous discussions and keep the exchange of ideas flowing. There may be something to the ring shape for Apple's HQ. Minimize distance to places and people while maintaining the central courtyard.

What are the design goals of Facebook and Google? And LinkedIn for that matter.</comment>


Snake oil or genius? Crown Sterling tells its side of Black Hat controversy - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/08/snake-oil-or-genius-crown-sterling-tells-its-side-of-black-hat-controversy/ <comment><USER2> It all stinks when they PAID $115k for a spot at Blackhat, and expected to be treated like royalty. They GOT what they signed up for; An audience and finished his talk and was taking questions.

This is going to turn out to be very bad for Crown Sterling as they can't prove many of their claims. Burden of proof is on them. So who is backing them, and these wild claims? There math is wrong, and many points the presenter said during the talk was wrong.

<comment><USER3> It still sounds like they are spouting bullshit. Their credentials lower my respect, they seem like the kind of things that impress an idiot "thought leader in ai".

<comment><USER2> I agree! They want people to believe their education/experience which is null.

One of the comments was rather funny:

"I have been working with a company in Southern California that relates to energy,"

Would anyone care to bet that this is -not- a free energy scam?</comment></comment></comment>


Blizzard shutting down Nostalrius, popular WoW private server - <AUTHOR> https://en.nostalrius.org/ <comment><USER2> I used to be involved with this sort of thing, and it's actually pretty interesting stuff. There are enormous open source projects, operating largely out of public sight, that have recreated the WoW server backend in most of its glory. The lower-level content works quite well these days, though a lot of complex raid scripts are missing or broken.

This one is probably the most popular: [https://github.com/TrinityCore/TrinityCore](https://github.com/TrinityCore/TrinityCore)

It's pretty rare for Blizzard to go after these companies in court, but it's happened here and there. Look up "Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Alyson Reeves" if you're curious what such a lawsuit looks like! Every patch since Lich King, though, has attacked these reverse engineers on the technical front by adding layers upon layers of obfuscation to the protocol. That's had some effect, and many private servers have stuck with the old Burning Crusade or Lich King releases.

<comment><USER3> One could argue that the Lich King was the last "good" patch for WoW. What I've never understood though was there is clearly some residual demand for "down rev" versions of the game where the mechanics favored a more engaged play style, why not facilitate it? How much does it really cost to run a single realm at the Vanilla, TBC, and LK levels? So many new players where their first experience with Onxyia was soloing her with a Paladin. Just not the same as 40 people trying to bring her down without falling to the whelp adds.

Sure I don't think you could get $15/month for it but certainly $5/month or $10 a month. And they already let you "play for free up to level 20" why not just let you play for free on a vanilla server up to level 60?

<comment><USER4> My personal intuition is that splitting your userbase like this is disastrous for a game in the long-term (to say nothing of my intuition that 90% of people longing for "the old days" are just looking for a quick hit of nostalgia, with no intent to pay long-term).

However, it's worth mentioning that Runescape now officially offers a "classic" version of the game alongside (and separate from) the modern version, which should be an interesting experiment to watch.

<comment><USER5> You know that is an argument about expansions in the first place? Significant player dropoffs in WoW happen in the last patches before new expansions. The userbase usually spikes up on new releases, but almost always drops lower every time, predominately because new releases gate players who were on old versions against those on the new one. Friends stop being interested, unsub, and never come back because the player base is fragmented across every level cap WoW has had.

I've always thought that level caps in MMOs, particularly the WoW variety slash-and-burn where you basically make a new theme park every two years and throw the last one in the dumpster in terms of player viability, is a destructive cycle not conductive to building real living worlds.

<comment><USER6> Blizzard isn't _interested_ in "building a living world" and never has been. From its inception the purpose of WoW has been to farm the likes of you for gold.

<comment><USER7> And how do they continue to "farm" you for gold if you unsubscribe because you no longer feel a part of the world?

<comment><USER8> By getting a small subset of players to buy premium cosmetic content and in- game gold. Blizzard came up with a clever mechanism involving game time and other players for the latter, both in order to obfuscate what they were doing somewhat and to give them a little more control over their economy.

The Blizzard Warcraft Store: [https://us.battle.net/shop/en/product/game/wow](https://us.battle.net/shop/en/product/game/wow)

Information on the "WoW Token" mechanism for turning $ into gold: [http://www.tentonhammer.com/guides/guide-to-buying-and- selli...](http://www.tentonhammer.com/guides/guide-to-buying-and-selling-the- wow-token)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's a petition written by the Nost team asking to legalize Legacy servers: [https://www.change.org/p/michael-morhaime-legacy-server- amon...](https://www.change.org/p/michael-morhaime-legacy-server-among-world- of-warcraft- community?recruiter=10263686&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink)

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow, this is eerie for me! I literally just sat down on my computer to create an account to play on Nostalrius and see this on HackerNews.

Talk about synchronicity!

Here's a neat info graphic of what Nostalrius had achieved (found on /r/wow): [http://i.imgur.com/jxtOQlu.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/jxtOQlu.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER10> > Today is also the day where Nostalrius will start being community-driven in > the truest sense of the word, as we will be releasing the source code, and > anonymized players data (encrypting personal account data)

This will be interesting. Apparently, there are open source reverse- engineerings of the old WoW code already, but having them release the source code may allow for some interesting applications.

I'd love to play around with that data dump as well.

<comment><USER5> There are actually dozens of WoW private server implementations (called cores) on github, for every version of the game. Their patches will be immensely useful to the various vanilla cores to improve their out of the box support, but this is actually the second shutdown server this year that is dumping its full scripting as open source after a server called Sunwell did it for WoW 3.3, and those scripts produced a dramatic increase in quality among other servers at that version very quickly.

<comment><USER11> Is there a project that focuses on portability between these "cores", for example taking your AD&D Character sheet with you between all these different cores?

<comment><USER5> Series of the cores share common functionality amongst themselves, but the character data structures between them are radically different because of changes in character info between versions (ie, they added achievements in wotlk, and then made them account wide in Cata / MOP), and in MoP / WoD they removed several item slots on certain classes).

The problem with most private servers is not character portability, but scripting portability. A quest scripted for a vanilla core probably won't work on a Burning Crusade one because the API used is different.

The WoW private server scene is actually fascinating to read from a code study perspective, because its all entirely hobbyist and often novice software development. Common solutions to problems like delegation or templates are often unused because the people writing the code just didn't know they existed and never formally studied software best practices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My friend logged on last night to see the response to the decision and found a huge number of players online. They were gathering together and mourning, doing things together one last time. It's kinda sad to think about a community destroyed.

<comment><USER13> Here is a gif of the action from the reddit thread:

[https://gyazo.com/945aa97382bd4a2f4e49a662b5ff6399](https://gyazo.com/945aa97382bd4a2f4e49a662b5ff6399)

This is more populated than any live server event since the dark portal opened (the first time).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I learnt programming from running an ultimate online server back in the day.

A little sad to seeing an(I assume), open source server like this being taken down.

As an admin we use to run on the premise of, if we weren't told not to run it, we could. Probably not 100% legal but it seemed to work.

It does make me wonder if they take the server down, is it because their subscription dropping so much?

<comment><USER15> Assuming the open source software was freely licensed, why would hosting an alternative server not be legal?

<comment><USER16> I think it's because players have to download an old version of WoW in order to play. This is a full game download and includes artwork and music IP content. Not to mention it means there is no need to pay a monthly fee to Blizzard.

Blizzard is fully in their right to shut it down, but it's unfortunate the current state of things.

This is not about getting around paying for WoW. Vanilla WoW is practically abandoned-ware. Blizzard has been clear they have no plans to launch a Vanilla server, and they don't even seem sympathetic to the idea. There is content and gameplay in Vanilla that you cannot experience in the current version of WoW. There are many old school players who have fond memories of Vanilla (including me), and we have no way to get our nostalgia fix other than a server like Nostalrius.

I have moved on from WoW and have no interest in the current game, but I would enjoy experiencing Vanilla again, just like I enjoy playing old SNES RPGs, listening to 80's music, or reading the same books or watching the same movies over and over. With other forms of media you can do that, but not here. I understand the legal reasons, but still, it's unfortunate.

I see this as another new and lamentable consequence of things moving to the cloud. I find similarities here with the Nest/Google fiasco. It used to be you could buy something and it was yours, completely, forever, to do with whatever you want. Now, not as much.

<comment><USER17> Legally they might be within their right, but cases like this really demonstrate to me that there ought to be some legal concept of abandonware when a product is substantially modified from its original state.

What precedent does it set that you have no legal right to retain access to software in the form that you've paid for it? If Gabe Newell went insane tomorrow and fired all employees then shipped patches making all Valve titles unplayable is there really no legal recourse for the people who bought those games? This is a case of the law being behind the technological realities in my opinion.

(and yes I know there's probably some EULA cop-out about how you don't own the client and merely paid for a temporary license to it or blah blah blah)

<comment><USER16> Library of Congress did change DCMA rules last year to allow consumers to modify an abandon-ware game to bypass authentication servers that no longer exist. However, they specifically excluded MMO-like games, only covering "video games that can be played by users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external computer server". Still, it's at least acknowledgement that abandon-ware is a legitimate form of media that rightfully deserves preservation.

[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-10/28/dmca-game- pre...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-10/28/dmca-game-preservation- exemptions-abandoned-games)

<comment><USER17> It also doesn't allow for copying of games beyond personal use as I understand it, so it's really hitting MMO emulation from two directions as it's currently defined. How many of your potential players still retain the original install disks, especially after 12+ years? I can't imagine very many.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's worth noting amidst all the debate about whether it's feasible or worthwhile to offer older versions of the game as server options, blizzard has already done this for a long time with Diablo 2. You could (can still) choose to play classic or expansion on the legit battle net servers, and both had ( possibly still have ) vibrant communities. So it's not like this would be particularly novel as an idea to them, I'm surprised they haven't done it with wow already.

<comment><USER19> with their constantly dropping subscription numbers it might just be a good idea for them business wise to open specific expansion set servers.

<comment><USER20> I would honestly pay to play pre-BC WoW again.

The real problem that Blizzard seems to have is listening to their users - they're constantly making changes based on the feedback of vocal groups of players or trying to simplify their games to be more appealing. They have some of the most valuable IP in gaming and I feel like they're not making the most of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I used to work for a private server that shut down in 2010 (Phoenix Wow). It was my first exposure ever to a big code base, teamwork with version control and some reverse engineering. The "cores" were usually forks of the Mangos project (TrinityCore, R2) written in C++ and pretty unstable (uptime was usually only hours). If Rust existed in that era it would've been much better.

</comment><comment><USER22> My opinion is not popular, but I think Blizzard are absolutely right in this case, by many reasons (not only because of money).

<comment><USER23> Care to elaborate on your reasoning? The people playing on Nostalrius aren't suddenly going to switch to the latest expansion, so there's literally zero incentive for them to go after it.

<comment><USER22> It's exactly main reason: Blizzard have right to control the history and evolution of the WoW universe. Players can still play on old locations even on official servers, but things like game balance, economics - it's all was made by Blizzard and they have right to change it, for good or bad.

<comment><USER24> you sound like a libertarian invoking libertarian principles which I don't agree with so I don't see the "obviousness" of it that you see.

Even if Blizzard hired Howard Roark himself as their architect, seems to me I should be able to make alterations to the design of my own building in which I wish to park a Howard Roark designed car, no matter how angry it makes Howard, Eugene, and Blizzard.

And a court may rule in my favor even if you seem to think I should take your word on it, from your perspective of the zany libertariangasm you guys get from thinking about the ownership of ideas and not having anybody tell you what you can't do so long as you get to tell other people what they can't do.

<comment><USER22> Even if I have different opinion, it doesn't mean I want to offend you, so please don't be so aggressive. I have no relations with Blizzard (I don't even play WoW, it was long time ago). Thank you for letting me know who are libertarians - and yes, looks like I support this idea, but in minarchism form :)

<comment><USER24> sorry if I offended you, I was making a point in debate-style, I wasn't attacking you.

I also sense that you are not a native speaker of English: so, just mentioning, what you wrote comes across in English as very "there is only one way, the way I am saying". It sounds like you didn't mean it that way, so sorry it triggered, when I saw that debate blip on my radar screen, I decided to shoot it down :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Suddenly Blizzard's April Fools tweet seems cruel.

 _Re-Live the old worlds of warcraft with our legacy servers coming this june!_

 _Starting with vanilla!_

[https://twitter.com/Blizzard_EN/status/716004308043624448](https://twitter.com/Blizzard_EN/status/716004308043624448)

<comment><USER26> That's a fake account.

<comment><USER27> It's not verified but I'm missing the obvious clue as to why you think it's fake. They seem to post genuine tweets and link to official marketing websites.

<comment><USER28> All of Blizzard's accounts are verified. Their official corporate account is @blizzard_ent (note the "t").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Seems the classy thing to do would have been for Blizzard to ask politely instead of sending in the dogs.

<comment><USER30> I'm wondering if their objective here was to make an example out of this particular server as they have with others. Once they reach a particular critical mass, they gain Blizzard's interests and down comes the legal hammer.

Although you have to wonder what sort of impact this is going to have, if any. I'd wager most of the players are unlikely to pay for a retail subscription if they aren't already simply on the merits that they were actively looking for a 1.x vanilla server. Further, it has to be a bit like a game of whack-a-mole: For each server they shut down, one or two reappear to take their place, but it does serve as trademark/copyright protection against dilution and illegal use of game assets.

I've read a few threads on the official forums out of shear curiosity, and it almost reminds me of the discussions that occurred during the height of Napster et al. The primary difference being that the private servers recreate a product that effectively doesn't exist anymore (not justifying the legality of it, but if you ignore the copyright/trademark issues, that's essentially the underpinning issue). Blizzard _claims_ there's insufficient interest in prior expansions to justify re-implementation (and maybe they're right) but the number of private servers surely can't _all_ be populated with freeloaders.

Part of me wishes there was a better resolution to this. WotLK was my favorite expansion, and it'd be nice to play it again with some of the more recent improvements mixed in (minus the spell culling and talent nonsense--it feels far too dumbed down).

<comment><USER31> > _I 'd wager most of the players are unlikely to pay for a retail > subscription if they aren't already simply on the merits that they were > actively looking for a 1.x vanilla server._

I can only speak for myself, but back when I played WoW (2005-2007) I started exploring the private server scene after the first expansion. I liked BC and continued my paid account for it, but I also missed Vanilla so I sought out ways to play it without having to pay for two subs.

Needless to say, it was a whack-a-mole affair back then, with private servers popping up and others disappearing constantly. Fun, but too much work for a game that was already taking too much of my time. I quit playing altogether when my then-girlfriend and I broke up (she was the one who got me into the game and was really the only reason I kept playing).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Something that to some small degree worries me is that video game preservation is all but impossible for online-only services. WoW and its ilk have played a large role in the evolution of video games, but in ten years we're unlikely to be able to recreate anything like the experience of playing the game at any stage.

I don't think there's a good solution, especially without market leaders such as Blizzard, Sony, or NCSoft taking a pro-preservation stance. Legislation to protect the rights of reverse-engineers seems troublesome, and existing copyright law makes any kind of expiration period ineffective.

</comment><comment><USER33> A lot of commenters are suggesting a server that runs old patches, like Jagex and RS. This is essentially the definition of cannibalization and almost never a good idea. IMO Jagex only got away with it because they explicitly released a new version of the game that was totally different. Unless WoW's next expansion is WoW 2.0 with totally different mechanics, I don't see them hosting an old server.

<comment><USER5> Each version of WoW in general has completely different mechanics. Between different versions of the game they have changed effectively everything. If you were to play the live version of the game today and compare it to vanilla, it is much more different in both mechanics and technical implementation than a lot of standalone independent games have been by significant margins. Just think of Doom 1 and 2, or more recently Wolfenstein: The New Order vs The Old Blood, or CoD Black Ops 1 and 2. All those pairs of games reused game assets and engines almost verbatim, with much more similar or identical game mechanics compared to how much Blizzard changes between versions.

The argument these players make is that the version of WoW today is _not_ the game they bought or played in 2006 at all, and by every metric you would measure "difference" in besides "is this the game Blizzard entertainment today calls World of Warcraft?" it would be measurably more different than dozens of games we consider independent products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I had a feeling this was gonna happen when I saw blizzard shilling WoW on reddit the other day and these guys were all over the comments promoting.

</comment><comment><USER35> A bit off topic but anybody knows what kind of stack Blizzard is using for WOW ?

<comment><USER36> I'd love to know/dig into this as well! Any ideas?

<comment><USER37> You can get some clues here:

[http://us.blizzard.com/en- us/company/careers/posting.html?id...](http://us.blizzard.com/en- us/company/careers/posting.html?id=15000IO)

Linux, C++, SQL, etc...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Wonder if the popularity of Nostalrius will cause Blizzard to do a Jagex inspired re-release of vanilla or the burning crusade? Not sure if I have the commitment but it would certainly be nostalgic.

</comment><comment><USER39> I like how there are two versions of the title

>popular WoW private server

>popular WoW pirate server

</comment><comment><USER40> I wonder if it makes sense to charge the monthly subscription for the client, rather than the server. That way you could play on whatever server you want, but still had to pay a monthly fee.

<comment><USER41> They'd probably be worried about "watering down" the player counts on their One True server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> A bit late to this discussion (understatement I know), but running this type of private game server was partially what got me in this industry. In my case, I was running relatively successful Maplestory private servers back in 2008, on the order of 12,000~15,000 concurrent users.

Hundreds, probably thousands of these servers cropped up overnight after the first "core" was created, and many many variations of that core quickly followed. At some point, many of us in the private server community caught wind of Nexon (creators of Maplestory) going after certain kids for their private servers. This was an everyday occurrence. Almost always, it was in the form of a Cease and Desist letter.

Many of these servers had < 10~50 users concurrently and were run on home computers as many of us had non-existent budgets. Most servers were merely carbon copies of each other, as the owner would be able to create the server by using some reputable core and a setup guide. As with anything, a lot of traction was gained by servers that put development effort into adding their own touch into the game (alternative currencies like chickens, alternative bosses like Sonic the Hedgehog, and rebirth systems that let you utilize the skills of multiple character classes at once), and ones who were frequently engaging with their community and hosting in game events/contests.

There were private server rankings. Everyone would be vying for votes to get to the top 3 and gain visibility, which invariably resulted in them receiving letters. Those of us that became significantly more popular and had players actively going out and advertising for us quickly came under the spotlight and received letters with the threat of legal action if not promptly shutdown.

In fact, these shutdown letters were such a big part of the scene at the time, that some popular servers got shutdown by competitors sending fake Cease and Desist letters (don't ask how I know)...the response would typically be a quick and simple shutdown, waving goodbye to the community. Some owners with more skin in the game would deviously "shutdown" their server, then "re-birth" it as a different, smaller server since any communication sent in game was unlikely to be seen by Nexon. Few brave souls would post the Cease and Desist on their website while taunting and berating Nexon, though I never found out what happened to those guys.

Seeing this post brings back so many memories -- Honestly, a lot of time was wasted on that game but I would not be doing what I do today if it weren't for the people I met while doing it (my next major project was with a friend of a dedicated player on my server). It was also lots of fun.

</comment><comment><USER43> Maybe blizzard might be getting ready to release a "classic" version of the game because the nostalgia is strong (even though they've publicly decried it many times).

</comment><comment><USER44> I wonder if this will mean more and more servers are going to be sued. I've been playing on private servers since 2012, I play hours each day, and the future does not look very bright if this keeps happening I'm afraid...

Just two days ago I started my journey as a blood elf hunter :-)

The problem with private servers is that they seem to be addicted to OVH. I get it that it's cheap, has nice routes and usually they don't give a damn about what you host, but it's a single point of failure. I wonder if many of those servers are about to move to Ukraine (Russia) or something like that :-)

Ah, and believe me, some of them make ludicrous amounts of money, have paid employees, etc. It's not just a community. They all forked MaNGOS or TrinityCore and starting piling up their fixes on top of it (which they don't have to share because it's GPL, not AGPL), but some chose to pay their developers!

I'm happy to answer any questions about what it's like to play on private servers or how some stuff works in the technical side, or the community, or whatever!

<comment><USER45> How much administrative effort does it take to operate a private server? I've always kind of conceptualized it as a duct-tape-and-baling-wire affair, but I have a sneaking suspicion things are a _lot_ more professional these days.</comment></comment>


JIRA Dev Team Doesn't Use JIRA? - <AUTHOR> http://www.hamidshojaee.com/post/47641937622/jira-dev-team-doesnt-use-jira

<comment><USER2> Sometimes having something on a computer screen isn't what you need to get the job done and may make things more complicated. I am guessing thats the story behind the notes.

<comment><AUTHOR> The number of sticky notes and the complexity and detail of each note card (they are color coordinated and such) don't seem like something they did real quick and then throw it into JIRA. It makes it seem like that's how they track their projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think they're doing affinity diagramming, not sprint planning...

<comment><AUTHOR> Isn't that what their Greenhopper product is suppose to help with? It just seems so wrong for a project management software company to be using such an archaic system to manage their own projects. I can understand the need if the user experience is really bad - maybe that's why that was the focus of V6.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Mendo – simple, deterministic, understandable social sharing - <AUTHOR> https://mendoapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi Hacker News,

We're beta testing a new thing, and we'd love your feedback. It's called Mendo, a new take on social sharing that's understandable, asynchronous, and surfaces the best things being shared by people you trust.

Mendo is simply ranked by number-of-shares, for links last shared in a given time period. In order to start cheaply, we integrated with Twitter and are surfacing our data as a daily digest of top links shared by the people you follow on Twitter. On its own, this feels useful for us: we want to be in the loop, but often miss things on our social feeds.

But, don't be fooled, this isn't just a Twitter digest email. The idea here is a new system for sharing and ranking content on the web. We're working on apps and other ways to display this data, if the idea resonates.

Please let us know what you think! Justin (& Tom, who might chime in if there are comments)</comment>